Thursday, August 6, 2015

Lynette Fromme Responds

Sorry, young man, but your memories are faulty. Between 1967 and 1969 Charles Manson was not beat up by anyone but deputies from the Los Angeles Sheriff's department in an August 1969 raid on Spahn's Ranch. I lived on the ranch when Charlie was there, but the other ranch hands you describe as having been there were not. The cowboys who lived and worked on the ranch when Charlie was there are not in your story. So, unless you have written fiction, whatever memories you have of meeting Shorty Shea are about an earlier set of years, and the people who you believed were Tex Watson and Charles Manson were not.

Lynette Fromme
(Signed)

I do not have a website or on-line capability so I can only respond through others.

* * *

Presenter’s Comment --

Since it’s likely that Lyn Fromme’s contribution disputing
Pete P.’s claim that he saw Charles Manson get roughed up at Spahn’s Ranch on
several occasions will generate commentary and controversy I thought I would
weigh in with some of my own thoughts before turning it over to the readers of
this blog.

First of all I have to say that I have no dog in this cliché,
and I wouldn't even have questioned Pete's account had not one of the Admins of
this site asked me if I could ask some of the other residents of Spahn's Ranch
in 1969 whether they thought his story rang true. As a result of that request two
of those persons (one of whom was Lyn) read the account as published here on
the MF Blog. I also talked with two other persons ("family members,"
both of whose names would be instantly recognized by any reader of this blog)
who did not read the account; I merely asked them if they remembered a
10-year-old boy who frequented the ranch, arriving and departing by mini-bike,
and who hung out with Shorty Shea and was generally known as "the kid."
Then I later asked them whether they remembered Manson ever being beaten up at
the ranch aside from during the August 16 raid.

All four of the individuals had no recollection either of
Pete P.'s presence at the ranch or of any serial CM sluggings. (Actually, it
wasn’t that they had no recollections of any beatings; they said that they
didn’t happen -- period.) In fact,
one of the “secondary” girls corroborated Lyn's version, saying when asked if
Manson had ever been beaten at the ranch, "Yes, [the police] definitely
beat the crap out of him [during the August 16 raid] while I watched. They held
an M-16 to my head as Bear cried. They made sure we watched. Other than that,
not that I know." (One could argue that Lyn and the other girl have
rehearsed their stories, but they have not seen each other in over forty years,
so either they tell the same version because they had it planned out forty
years ago, or they tell the same version because it is the truth.)

Pete says he was a witness to four Manson thrashings: two by
Monte Laird (one of which Pete arrived late on the scene only to witness the
aftermath thereof), one by Joe Soto, and one bear paw slap down of Manson by
Shorty Shea himself. I think it's remarkable that one person would witness so
many assaults. And if Pete’s recollections are true and he witnessed four
assaults during his part-time presence at the ranch over a period of a few
months, it figures that there must have been other assaults that he didn't see. In fact, based on the number
of the assaults witnessed by Pete alone, I would have to imagine that Manson
was getting pounded at least every week and likelier every few days.

Of course we all know that Manson is crazy, but why anyone
would remain at a location where they were subjected to serial slappings and
humiliations is a mystery. Also odd is the idea that someone who was basically
raised in prison (and a small someone at that) would not have developed some
kind of survival skills that would have enabled him to avoid violent encounters
with larger men. In other words, Manson learned not to be confrontational with
bigger guys when he was incarcerated for the simple reason that if he was confrontational he could easily have
been beaten or even killed. And isn't it likely that he would apply those same
survival lessons to large, hostile individuals he encountered on the outside?
Or would he just keep walking up to big guys and pissing them off until he
ended up in the dust?

Seeking confirmation of such beatings, I consulted the
literature on the subject. And the first place I went to was Ed Sanders' The Family, because I figured that if
there was any rumor at all about the
activities at Spahn's Ranch that anyone ever thought they heard it was sure to
be repeated in Sander's book. But there was nothing there except for one
mention of Manson beating up Randy Starr, which is certainly not what we're
looking for here. None of the memoirs of Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, or Paul
Watkins mention any CM slapfests either. And not only that, there is also no
mention of any Manson beatings in any of the parole hearings of the convicted
murderers, and significantly not in the hearings of those persons convicted of
murdering Shorty Shea, like Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan. At all of these
hearings the convicted killers are asked for the reasons for Manson’s
homicidal hostility towards Shea, and the allegations of him being a snitch are
always brought up. But never once does someone reply, "Oh yeah, and
Charlie was tired of Shorty and his friends beating him up all the time."

If Charles Manson was being regularly slapped around at
Spahn’s Ranch it would have been a very big topic of conversation amongst his immediate
associates who, of course, held him in high esteem. It would have been very big news. And yet none of those
associates recalls any such occurrences. Not one.

I looked up the names of the Manson beaters on the Internet.
There are references to Joe Soto bloodying Charlie’s nose in front of the Long
Horn Saloon, but the references are based on Pete P.’s recollections. Ditto for
Monte Laird. I found this extensive interview with Laird where for some reason he
doesn’t mention that, incidentally, he twice beat up Charles Manson. Considering
that show business is, after all, a publicity driven endeavor, is this likely?
What show business person would omit from his resuméthe
fact that he beat up one of the most notorious mass murderers of all time?

Of course one could posit that the four "family
members" I talked to are all lying because they don't want to admit that
CM got beaten up a lot.But why wouldn’t
any of the other persons involved in the crimes (most of whom are doing life
for murder and have no love lost for Charles Manson and are fond of bringing up
every alleged negative facet of his character whilst trying to put the best
light on their own) also mention that he was frequently getting the shit
slapped out of him (perhaps as yet another reason for that legendary “anti-social
hostility” of his?)?

As for Pete P. -- why would he lie? I could speculate on reasons for that, but my speculations
would be just that and it wouldn't be appropriate or even meaningful to commit them
to writing. But I can say that in my decades-long association with this case
I've met many people who have had seemingly detailed fantasy encounters with
Charles Manson, with “members of the Family," and even with me.

So that's about as far as I can realistically go with this.
I have offered some witness testimony and circumstantial evidence in support of Lynette's recollections. I'd be very interested if someone could find some similar corroboration for Pete P.'s version of events.

121 comments:

I remember reading a thread about Charlie receiving a humiliating thrashing from someone at Spahn. I thought it was over him beating on a new girl who lived in a trailer,Juanita? I need to search some more.Longtime lurker, first post.

Windy Bucklee (if it was even her, who knows what to believe anymore) said Shorty gave a beating to both Manson and Bill Vance. However, she said a lot of things that makes me wonder if she is senile or just another storyteller. I don't even want to repeat some of the other stuff she said, because it was so tasteless and sounded like it came right out of Sanders head.

Well, I just went back to some of the Bucklee posts here and a few other things. I have strong doubt the person people think is Bucklee, is NOT her. Unless somebody can prove me wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. If I'm correct, I believe she or a few others in conspiracy with one another are faking on people to troll them.

Yeah, the main thing I took away from this is that... well, I dunno, I knew she was alive and mentally still With It, but yeah- it was still nice to 'hear' from Red in a fashion. Maybe this is an Uncool thing to say, but I hope she's doing well.

I never even thought about questioning Pete P.'s account, which I guess shows how credulous we (I) can be. If it's true, then he's a fantasist- and he joins quite a crew of like-kind in Mansonland, of which I think 'White Rabbit' is the Head of State (although he at least did have some very weak tenuous 'real-life' link to the Family, I guess). Remember that other fella a while back, writing into the blog to share his stories of mixing with the Family- stories which pretty quickly fell apart upon questioning (and then he brought up the "my family is sick, and now you dump THIS on me!?" schtick to try & deflect the blog-derision)?

This isn't a new thing, Manson is Americana now, an urban legend, and myths & tall tales naturally swirl around these things. Like how everyone in Edinborough claims they were on Sean Connery's milk-route when he was a milkman, mebbe one day we'll reach the point where everyone alive in the 60's like, MET Manson, man- "I was at the beach, this creepy-lookin' hippy offered me a joint and a ride in his big black van- then wow-ee, six weeks later he was in the news as CHARLES MANSON!" Same deal with how everyone in Hollywood claims they were invited to the Tate-Polanski house on the night of, y'know...

Since I'm in a garrulous mood, I'm gonna expound some more (for your blogging pleasure, readers). There's two 'urban legend' type deals connected to the Manson case which have never been able to dislodge themselves from my imagination.

1. Ed Sander's book, original edition. In one of the many, many tenuous stories he claims are linked to Manson he describes a young girl being enticed out to a party at some far-flung spot, and people there were drinkin' weird liquid outta dirty-lookin' jugs (or jars, or jars in jugs, can't remember precisely). She got creeped out & left, and then told the cops (?). Sanders immediately is like THIS WAS MANSON, MORE PROOF OF MANSON'S EVER-PRESENT INFLUENCE. Because noone else in the LA area was swigging cactus-juice in dirty crash-pads, dig?

2. Manson's stories about the "Spiral Staircase House", a "karma pad" with wild & wacky visitors, beginning page 103 in Schreck's first book. (I think Sanders also mentions a 'spiral staircase' house in his book too?). "A guy would come in with a business suit, go to the door with no staircase, step out and fall face first twenty feet, straight down. Forty-five minutes later he'd come back, all fucked up, and do it again-two or three times!- as if he were in a daze. He did it all the time!" Place was not just visited by mentally-deficient businessmen; was also a crash pad for "people with long beards", "witches", "fourteen-year-old virgins" and "SS bikers", who drew pentagrams, ate peyote, held fuck-parties, and laid pies at the feet of Manson like sacramental offerings. Like all Manson's personal writing in Schreck's book this is probably fiction, a story, not meant to be taken literally, but I still gotta wonder- lot of weirdness in Cali back then, how much of this is true?

And is that first story true, or another figment of Sanders's imagination, or another wild tale spun to a credulous Fug by a sniggering prank-playing interviewee? Where's that girl now, if it happened? Did those jugs and jars ever get cleaned? How much weirdness and odd stories swirled around the Manson clan? How much more is gonna be flung at us- and debunked, or proved, or disputed? What frenzied rumours are people gonna be whispering about Manson 100 years from now?

I think the only slap downs that were happening back then on that ranch were the ones CM was handing down to the girls, correct? Oh, and the one where CM & Danny Decarlo beat up Danny's wife when she went out there to pick up their son.....

I can tell you beyond the shadow of doubt it was her. One of our silent contributors visited her. She testified at trial, and was found using her real name and birth date. In our story on her we only relayed things that were plausible, because much of what she said wasn't. She's a story teller, for sure.

I think the "kid" with the motor bike "issue" was raised HERE before and I do remember him and have film on him with the bike at the Ranch. I'm sure Sandy remembers him also, but that ONLY means a"KID" may see things, adults don't.

IF the issue is: what would happen IF someone like a tough "cowboy" did beat Manson up, I could replay the TRUE story of the time Charlie beat the fuck out of a guy who temporarily TOOK Charlie's favorite spot to play his guitar in prison.

BUT that would lead to the "mental" brain issue that several folks have to deal with all through society. We like to call it a "quick" temper, BUT it is much more than that and some day society will evolve to the point that that issue will be dealt with intelligently.

For NOW - just THINK of the guy who quickly became enraged at the "moneychangers" - beat the shit out them and physically threw THEM out of the sacred temple.

PS Squeaky - you're still MY favorite little gangster. AND you're the only one who actually gave GF something to be remembered by.

"Vermouth, my native city is Edinburgh:) We do still refer to Connery as "Big Tam the Milkman"

Another Scot told that fact to me, originally. I wonder how people in Edinburgh refer to his brother (probably with: "Who?").

And I agree with Mr. H. about Squeaky: true OG, original gangster, baby; those photos of her handling powerful weaponry (badly, apparently, according to some here!) still get my engine revving. I'm just surprised we haven't heard more of her over the years; with her energy and zeal (aka fanaticism) she could have achieved a lot if she'd attached herself to a guerilla/radical group. She & Blue probably lacked the organisational skills to get the International People's Court of Retribution off the ground on their own.

I'd still love to read the unpublished book Schreck claims (p. 164, Manson File) she wrote in 1977. Red, if you DO read this blog- I'd buy it! You could donate the proceeds to the redwoods. :)

RH-this is the second time you've alluded to Jesus beating up the money changers. I don't think beating up was part of their exchange. As I recall he overturned their tables and maybe threw them out, but beating the shit I think is overstating it.Who is GF?

Windy Bucklee is a real person but that is not her true name, it is a name that she asked we use in the posts about her. No doubt Windy was entertaining but I had a very hard time corroborating her stories, not so much her stories about the Family because most of those are hearsay no matter who was telling the stories. It was what she told me about herself that I had trouble with verifying. She was at the Ranch for a time and was friends with Shorty. She was even called to testify at the trial for his murder, in her true name.

SO BEFORE i get called every name in the book by every internet radio SHOW host out there ...i would like to have one thing cleared up,so RED is not saying that pete wasnt there..all she is saying is the story about manson being beat up is not true.??..because robert claims to have filmed him....just clearing things up before B.D. calls me a pot smokin idiot who doesnt know shit !!..LMAO!!..witch i dont mind (sticks and stones),i know theres 2 sides to every story....

I believe Pete, too. To be clear when he spoke of the wranglers he spoke mostly in terms of them at other neighboring ranches, but with them occasionally being at Spahn.

I also understand how 46 y.o. memories can be tricky - hence the memories of the beatings. I can see where a 10 y.o. boy hears cowboys describing how they roughed someone up could resonate with a boy and lead him to "remember" that he witnessed them.

Hump - I saw that movie also, BUT just before HE walked up and "turned the tables" on the "money-changers", did you SEE the red stains on HIS knuckles. Apparently, HE was also pissed-off at the temple elders, who were in on the "money-changers" use of the scared temple to further their business interests.

BTW, I'm sure Ms. Squeaky understands that my "gangster" comment was meant as a respectful compliment, just as I would put C.M. in the same class as "Billy the Kid."

As I've said before "publicly" "Squeaky" has a bigger pair of balls than any man I've ever met. AND I've personally met Charles Manson.

"RH-this is the second time you've alluded to Jesus beating up the money changers. I don't think beating up was part of their exchange. As I recall he overturned their tables and maybe threw them out, but beating the shit I think is overstating it"

"Beating the shit" might be overstating it but I think that might just be Robert using colourful language, the way maybe I'd talk about "hanging with God" rather than saying "in my personal relationship with God" or saying something like "the Lord had to deal me a few slaps on that one" rather than the the correct but rather staid "I was disciplined by God."

The three synoptic gospels relay more or less the same account of Christ 's encounter with the money changers at the temple. John's gospel however, adds the detail that he made a whip out of cords and used that to drive them out and chase them off. Which implies that he very well could have whacked them a few times. He was no softy. He spent three years walking around so he must've been pretty strong and fit. The biblical writers don't hide ~ they show both their biases and flaws as well as those of the people they wrote or relayed stories about. If Christ really was who they portrayed him to be, smacking up money changers in the temple courts is not at all inconsistent with what God used to do to people in and around Israel in "the old days."

St Circumstance said...

"if I have learned anything about all this- it is that I really don't know... Hard to know which stories are real and who is telling you the truth about what..."

That's the truth. Fact is, we're all sifters. Sometimes, it's clear that even some of those actually involved in events aren't clear because at the time, there was no reason to think anyone would be hanging on every sentence you uttered half a century later and life was just lived, not recorded as you went along. So remembering the kind of minute details that we want and analyse probably wasn't on anyone's radar.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

"I'd still love to read the unpublished book Schreck claims (p. 164, Manson File) she wrote in 1977. Red, if you DO read this blog- I'd buy it!"

George quotes from an unpublished book of hers in "Goodbye Helter Skelter." I'd read it in a flash if it were available. Blimey, I'd read Irving Kanarek's autobiography {He'd have to call it "Objection ! Sustained !!"} if there was one. It couldn't be worse than John Wetton's or Stewart Copeland's ones. I love to read, I'd even read William Garretson's....and when I say "I'd read..." that means "I'd buy."

i think its like a ''fishing'' story ...he caught a fish 10 inchs big,but when he told the story it was 100 inchs big ...LMAO!!!...IT WAS 46 YEARS AGO I GET IT ..maybe he mixin ranches up and names..who knows.??...i like the guy,i believe he was there...LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT,weather or not the story is true or not (manson being beat up) ..pete was there in my opinion and wouldnt have any reason to LIE to me about being there in the first place.....what does he gain by lieing to me.??? ...so maybe the story is not true and he is mixin his facts up..that doesnt mean he wasnt there..he said he hungout with shorty,not the family ....i dont like hearing negative stuff said abut Manson (i love him),maybe in this situation others dont like it either and there taking it personally???..who knows??? im just a pot smoker who cleans the ranch !!!

This is a funny subject that I never thought I'd hear other people discussing.

I've personally been told by a number of people over the years that they had a Manson encounter that led to them beating him up or throwing him out a window or whatever. And every time I question them further it eventually becomes obvious that their stories are not true.

The first time was on the set of Doogie Howser MD. We had a real cowboy there for a day (I don't remember why) and he was telling a lot of stories. Something prompted me to ask if he had ever met Manson. Without a beat he declared "I knocked him on his ass! He was trying his shit on me and put him down in the dirt!"

With all the darkness and stigma associated with the man, he still has movie star status that a lot of people WANT to somehow be associated with.

What made me suspicious is what she said about them cutting open a dog. It sounded like the typical Sanders-inspired fiction and reminded me of what "Patty" (supposedly the Patty Montgomery who hung out at Cielo with Bill Garretson) said in the TLB Radio interview about mutilated cats being thrown around the crime scene, which needless to say is such bullshit that it's actually insulting.

Then I found a YouTube account that had some silly animated versions of not only the Bucklee interview, but the "Patty" one as well along with one of a crank call to TLB Radio and one in regards to Peter P. So I thought that it might be one or more people pulling an elaborate troll on everyone. Apparently not.

Still, I take the story about Shorty beating Bill Vance and Manson with more than a grain of salt. I read Shorty was tough, but Vance was a boxer in prison, which is why his face looked so messed up and had some missing teeth. I don't know if kicking his ass was as easy as for Shorty as she made it out to me. Or, it's a figment of her imagination like the disembowelment of Lassie.

D. LaCalandra, Windy told me that story of the dog, too. I chose not to repeat it in the posts I did on her simply because the story did not ring true to me either. I did not listen to her later interview with TLB Radio though it did filter back to me that she was very entertaining. When people are interviewed live, like on the radio show, the interviewer is not expected to fact check. It is up to the listener to decide for themselves whether or not the person being interviewed is telling the truth.

To comment on those mentionin,,Windy Bucklee, I did copy&pasted this from somewhere on WWW.

There was already bad blood between Manson and Shorty, anyway, and this too was over a woman, but not Shorty’s wife. It was all about Windy Bucklee. Windy was another of the “regulars” who worked off and on at Spahn’s ranch. She landed there in 1963 after a troubled childhood in an Indian boarding school.

Accustomed to the interdependence and loose social structure on the ranch, Windy let another employee, Bill Vance, have a set of keys to her truck, so that he could use it while she was at work. Then came the day she was pulled over by the cops and found out her truck had been used in a string of armed robberies

Windy figured things out, right quick, about who had done what with her vehicle, but didn’t rat on Vance. Instead, she proved to the cops that she’d been at work when the robberies happened. Then she went and cornered Vance at his house and gave him a thorough tongue-lashing before demanding her truck keys. An hour later, Charlie showed up, wanting the keys back. When she refused to do it, Manson broke her jaw, then kicked the shit out of her while she lay on the ground. Windy apparently tried to shoot Manson for that, but was in bad shape by then and couldn’t get the safety off on her gun.

Such a pity.

Anyway, she wound up hospitalized for a couple of days but didn’t press charges. She had very little faith in the legal system that had stolen her from her own parents simply because they were Indians.

Shorty soon heard about all this, however, and when he got a look at Windy, he lost it.

Shorty turned on his heels and headed down the street to Bill Vance’s house, screaming, “Come out of there, you yellow bastard.” Little Harvey came out first and made the mistake of trying to calm Shorty down. The midget went flying. Then Vance came out, and Shea coldcocked him with one punch.

Next up was Manson, who came out talking tough, with a knife in his hand, but it did him no good. Shorty beat him right into the ground, and left him lying in the street, unconscious. Windy has said she thinks that beating is what got Shorty killed, and it’s why Charlie brought a whole posse along for the job, including Vance. He couldn’t stand the humiliation.

If this is so and IF this realy happenend,then everytime I ask myself the question, How did Manson get away whit all he did in his Probation...On Parole I mean...you know ?? If you got to read the Mainline storys, Manson voilates this frequently.But sorrie that must be another Topic... Back to Topic. If this is so,isnt this Windy not an Alias ???

HellzBellz as far as I know I was the first person to write about Windy Bucklee and that was here on this blog March 4, 2013. What you have copied and pasted looks as if someone has taken what I wrote, combined a couple of posts into one and embellished a bit and then called it their own!!! Here is a link to all the posts I did here for the blog on Windy with the oldest one at the bottom.

http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Windy%20Bucklee

You might want to check the dates on what you copied to see if that might be the case.

I was suppose to have written six posts on Windy and her stories, I ended up writing only four because as my interviews continued with her I became very suspicious that what she was telling me was not true. The last two posts I made were real throwaways because I balked at writing any more about her after the first two. The people that set me up with her were not pleased with me, I wish I could say more but I can't at this point. Let's just say I got my tit in a wringer. okay?!?!

To emphasis what Hendrickson alluded to, at the age of 10, tempers flaring with hard-cases that went unseen and/or unmentioned, may very well have appeared pretty violent to that perception. While one odd mystery this is still. It's like a law. NO ONE ever beat up See'Em, except the law.

The Windy story of Charlie's beat down is irrestible. Midgets, 3 eyed bulls, Bill Vance and Charlie laying in the dirt. When I first read it, I thought, that's a helluva story, but sounds a little fantastic and a little too pat. Nobody but Windy repeated a tale like that? I dunno & I don't think so.

I turned the page on Windy when she spun another story. she claimed she was horseback, riding on Spahn Ranch. She came upon a group of the Manson clan performing a sacrifice. She claimed they had a young girl tied up, upside down. They were in the process of torturing and killing her. The interviewer gasped and asked "What did you do, Windy"? "I shot the bitch" asserted Windy, without missing a beat.

This is why Jesus has cornered the Christmas card market. You almost never see Charles Manson Christmas cards, despite his Jesusy looks and his talent for pithy one-liners.

Another thing you never see emphasized in the Hollywood Jesus is his wacky prophecy that in the lifetime of his followers (and the lifetime of the High Priest) Jesus would be seen by the whole world returning as ruler and judge of the world, in explicit, unmistakable, apocalyptic glory. Is that any less wacky than the prophecy Manson and Bugliosi cooked-up between them? Is that any less wacky than the hole in the desert? It's fun to read even in the later biblical writings the gradual rationalisations for this failure of Jesus to return. And there they are, two thousand years after that final generation died out, ignoring those prophecies and replacing them with the entirely unbiblical idea that it all now happens spiritually, in some ethereal zone, after death.

Jesus was a world-negating eschatological prophet, dissimilar from Manson only in the details (the details, where the devil dwells). His predictions of his return to rule over all the earth failed to come true, just like Mansonliosi's, and yet that little cult within Judaism, worshiping an executed criminal and avoiding things like marriage because they expected to see him in the sky any day now, went on to become a cultural force that dominated the western world for two millennia.

It makes you wonder, if Mr Hendrickson et al do their job well as Bugliosi did his, what might Manson be made to become?

And now Grimtraveller, you may proceed to point out authoritatively why I am entirely wrong, with a little help from your fish-eating resurrected friend who has lived in the sky for two thousand years as lord and judge of all the earth.

Hump: When I read YOUR "As I recall the moneychangers....." I almost burst out loud laughing...YOU were there !

When I was about ten I went to my Catholic friend's church carnival, with the ferris wheel and all. AND right up close to the chruch's entry was the "moneychanger's" booth. Well, did that make ME parnoid or what! All I could think of was bodies flying out the big door and landing on top of ME.

Even when I was thowing baseballs at the milk bottles, I was listening for GOD to be shouting. "This is MY house - NO "moneychanging" for YOU in here."

Sorry ANN, it's all MY fault. Everytime I find myself hungry for an intelligent discussion, I seem to push the "JC" button. Besides, bashing a "kid" with a motor bike cause HE violated some "TRUTH" code, established by a MANSON blog, seems kind'a petty to me.

BUT - while we're on the "truth" kick, anyone KNOW what August 7, 1964 is most remembered for ?

YEP ! Congress passed the Gult of Tonkin Resolution giving LBJ the broad POWER to ignite a WAR in Vietnam without ANY further approval from Congress. AND the whole "thing" was based on LBJ's tall Texas tale claiming OUR ships were being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Of course, IT was ALL a lie, just like G. Bush using the LIE that Mr. Sudem Husaine had weapons of mass destruction, in order to ignite the Iraq WAR.

Mr Hendrickson.... wasnt that Navy ship called ,,MaddoX,, ?? and the commander of that Navy Fleet , Admiral George S. Morrison ?? Jim Morrisons father ?? Not that it has to do something with this Topic on Manson...but just want to know without stroling the Internet...

I strolled the internet for you:George Stephen Morrison (January 7, 1919 – November 17, 2008) was a United States Navy rear admiral (upper half) and naval aviator. Morrison was commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident of August 1964, which sparked an escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam War.And yes the ship was the Maddox."Father? Yes son?...I want to kill you." That wasn't very nice.

I know nobody gives a shit, but I think I mighta intimated further up I thought Pete's story was bullshit- I wasn't trying to. Not interested in Passing Judgement, wasn't my intention cause I only know that I Know Nothing, I just wanted to use it as the basis for a drug-fuelled rant & rave about The (Urban) Legend of Charlie Manson & all the weirdness that surrounds this whole 'case'. So, sorry if I impugned someone's honesty/credibility, wasn't intentional.

Reading all the replies above this one, from people with actual in-depth knowledge & insights, who are in contact with all sorts of central & peripheral 'characters' & can summon straight-up Facts about what happened how and when for their discussions... you're all great. I love this blog. :)

@Dawes:You're probably right about Red, I kinda forgot about her broader role in the Family- I was probably underestimating her capabilities a little, & overestimating other aspects (violence). Although, she did try to shoot the President! A blood sacrifice for the redwoods, a modern-day Uppsala. (& yeah, I know she never framed the act as a pagan offering, that's me bullshitting around again).

I doubt very much she reads this site too. I wish she did. I would love to read a book written by her. Has anyone read Jess Bravin's biography of her?

ST C, that's a rough day. I can only offer you the words of Edgar in King Lear

The worst is notSo long as we can say 'This is the worst.'

Keep your head and your heart up. It's a helter skelter. You hit the bottom, you climb the stairs, you have a fine view and a fun ride, and around it goes. Maybe life is clearing some unhelpful things out of the way so that your life can have better things to come, even though you must be hurting now.

Austin Ann, you're one of my favourites here, and I'm not intending to bash Jesus. Not at all. I didn't bash Jesus any more than Shorty bashed Manson. When someone drew a parallel between Jesus and the changing perceptions of who he was after his life was over, and our current perceptions of Manson, I couldn't resist pointing out the parallels in their prophetic expectations: early Christians were told at one stage not to bother marrying because any day soon Jesus was going to return in glory in the skies, surrounded by angelic beings, and would return as actual ruler, and the world would be changed utterly. And questions were asked when believers started to die of old age without any sign of this coming to pass. To point out the shift in interpretation from his closest followers to our own generation is not 'bashing' Jesus. I wouldn't do that.

St Circumstance, I'm so sorry to hear your bad news.Vermouth, I enjoyed reading Jess Bravin's Squeaky bio. Lots of good information in there-for starters, her name is pronounced From-me, two syllables. But it covers in depth her life from childhood through Manson and Sacramento period and her wacky trial. I can't remember how much of jail it covers, but I think it does cover a lot of that too, because I remember something about when she took the hammer to the other inmate, and when she escaped. With just those two incidents it surprised me when she was paroled.

SEE, this is why almost EVERYTHING in my life relates to the Manson story. I had a 67 Camero, big engine, four on the floor - Super Sport Then Merrick fucked me out of my MANSON film and I had to SELL my beloved Camero just to pay the rent. I think YOU know the rest of that "story."

So when I look "carefully" at this POST about "Shorty" beating the shit out of Charlie - Well, I think YOU know the rest of THAT story.

RH said: "Merrick fucked me out of my MANSON film"I don't know that story pa.While I'm at it I was just thinking about Inside the Manson Gangwhen you said Brenda was seeming increasingly hard (I forget if that'sthe word you used, but I took it as she was becoming a tough, hardenedperson) Would be willing to expand on that a little?Thank you!Again St C. so sorry you're going through this.Matt I can't believe you experienced all that in one day.Reminds me of the Roosevelt series when Teddy lost I think hiswife and mother in the same day to illness.

"early Christians were told at one stage not to bother marrying because any day soon Jesus was going to return in glory in the skies, surrounded by angelic beings, and would return as actual ruler"

One thing I've learned as a Christian is that when you go up one side of a mountain, you're better off going down the other side for then you get a better view of the lie of the land. MHN, your statement is technically correct, Paul in one of his letters to the Corinthians counsels some people not to marry and the part of his reasoning contains the logic that Christ is coming any day soon......That's one side of the mountain. It tends to ignore the other side. The same Paul who gave that advice also stated very clearly that he did not have that as any kind of command from God and that it is his own opinion. He states that in the same letter. He also gives advice to single people, married people and engaged people and though he thinks getting married will bring hassle in life he also concedes that everyone has their own gift from God and therefore is careful not to tread on God's toes. The important thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between saying "I think you're better off not being married" and "you shouldn't get married." Later in his life when writing to one of his young assistants, he says that forbidding people to get married would be a sign that certain "Christians" were departing from the faith.Furthermore, in your comparison of "the followers changing the original concept" a la Manson, the early Christians did believe that Jesus would reappear in their lifetime. They would have been stupid and presumptuous not to, just like followers of Christ in any era would. Christ is quoted as saying that no one except God the Father knew when he'd be returning ~ even he didn't know. So to walk about saying "well, he ain't coming back in my lifetime" is a kind of dangerous assumption to make. A believer lives like he could come back at any point. There's nothing dumb in believing Christ could return in one's lifetime. And if he could, it would follow that you'd live like he will.So that's the other side of the mountain. I've found that most biblical statements have "the other side of the mountain" so to speak.The opposite is true of the Manson saga insofar as you don't get too much of tension and balance, you get more of outright contradiction. Bobby says this, then later he said that but Charlie says this and Mary said this, then this, then that but Susan said that then later she said this but Danny said this and Kitty says this but Ella Jo said......

In both however, you do get paradoxes galore.

Matt said...

"In one day I:

1) Lost my long-time girlfriend 2) Got fired from my job"

That happened to me back in 1994. And it led to all kinds of hassles over the next few years with other jobs, the Dept of health & social security, the lady I had been seeing {and parts of her family} and a lot more besides.But life went on. While I was going through it, it wasn't funny {actually, some bits were, even then} and to be honest, words of comfort meant pretty much nothing. I was numb for quite a while.But I eventually thawed out.

St., life is full of the thrill of victory. But, the agony of defeat makes the victories sweeter and last longer. You will come through this just fine.

Dawes, if you want to learn about the Manson saga this is the best forum for it. Sometimes late on weekends you wind up hearing the rants of a drunken mailman or two, hear about politics, religion or even balls in your mouth. That's the nature of a loosely moderated discussion. Separate the wheat from the chaff. There are a few visitors I don't care for so I don't read their comments.

AustinAnn, I got the same eye-widening feeling you did. Red reads the blog? And contributes by proxy? That is so fucking cool!

"Aside from more religious comments, we now also have anti-religious righteousness that to me comes off as "hate" coming in at the end. I am not even religious and I find this not only distasteful but highly offensive."

I feel exactly the same way tbh, find it a bit odd 'hate-speech' is only tolerated (& socially-acceptable..) when it's directed at Christians. I try to stay out of those discussions, arguing about religion & politics burns a lot of energy, and a lot of bridges. I might feel more passionate if I was a Christian, though.

"I haven't been a reader for that long, but if this is really the usual course of discussion on this blog I doubt I will stick around (and yes, I know plenty of you wouldn't care anyway)."

Well, it's not the usual course of discussion for people to start slinging mud at one another about religion, I've only seen that happen recently, and then only a few times.

But I do remember the first time I began reading this blog, I was totally gobsmacked that a blog about a 'murder case' had: feuds & rivalries, cliques, pecking orders, people insulting each other personally, passionate angry arguments, etc. But that happens when people form a community, around anything. If the same people hang around any setting (online or offline) long enough that stuff happens, it's how humans work in social situations.

It's also pretty normal for any discussion to evolve, from one topic to another. If you start talking to someone about cooking the discussion might move on to pistachios, and then to Iran, and then to religion, and then to holidays. That's also how humans work, it happens online as much as it does offline. I kinda like that, sometimes those are the most interesting comment threads (and sometimes they devolve into ragging on Christians). Maybe it'd be better if we all stuck to talking about Red's accusations about Pete's truthfulness, but unless he chimes in to defend himself is there really all that much to say about it?

And also, thanks humprat for your views on the Squeaky bio... I'll have to check it out, once I finish George's book (which Amazon told me has shipped! it's on it's way, hooray).

I woke up at 2 am and could NOT go back to sleep. That bastard Matt fucked ME again. All I could do was THINK about how HE had ALL those "bad" things happen to HIM - ALL in one day. And the best I could do was remember maybe two things at 4:10 a,m, and they did NOT even happen within a 24hour period.

When I got to Fort Hood for basic training, the post General threatened to personnaly SHOOT me - AND when I got an order to go to Vietnam, BUT they were a couple of months apart.

Don't YOU get it Mr. Dawes: It's ALL about "trumping" the other commentors - and that's how YOU win the MansonBlog game. So far, the St. holds the record for the most wins. It's usually with an "I quit the blog."

When It looks like it's gonn'a be a tie, I like to interject the Jesus factor - talk about having a "bad" hair day.

So far, at least someone gets upset when the Vietnam War, LBJ, Jesus or anything positive is said about the the Manson Family. Dirty, smelly, hippies and EVIL bloodthirsty KILLERS are really in.

Welcome to NO sense makes sense - where there are NO losers only QUITERS.

BUT it's TRUE, I was up for hours thinking about ALL the weird things that I've experienced in my entire life AND boy could I fill a book. I've been laid off and split from women BUT in the same day ? NOOOO !

So NOW, it's like I'm trying to win at poker without ANY cards.

It's kind'a like what they say in Texas: "Appeal ? - you want to appeal YOUR death sentence ? - we haven't even executed YOU yet !

Vermouth, Suze, Dawes - I think it entirely strange to discuss the Manson case - Man's son, God and the Devil, the devil's work - without religious belief entering the discussion. Sure, some people take the opportunity to spew ignorant bile, of course, but why let that worry you? If your God is great and your faith is strong, why wouldn't you just laugh at such ignorance? If you know you have the truth you have no need for feelings of offense. I think the word 'offensive' is a cancer on the human mind. 'Offensive' is the word people use when they think they must not hear their beliefs questioned. 'Offensive' is the word that fuels aircraft as they approach the twin towers, or blows up trains in Madrid or London.

@Saint, hang in there man. It'll be tough for a while, but you'll come out a better man. It just might not feel like it now. Last year I lost my father, a few months later my long time girlfriend split, and I had a $100 a day heroin habit. Things still aren't easy but I'm alive and almost happy again (and clean.)

Cheers to the members of this blog, for it's AUG 9, and as we know an important day in our little group here.

Trimgraveller: "MHN, your statement is technically correct, Paul in one of his letters to the Corinthians counsels some people not to marry and the part of his reasoning contains the logic that Christ is coming any day soon......"

Oh THANK you! Thank you so much for giving my statement your official seal of technical approval!

All your vague poetic stuff about mountains aside, you fail to respond in any specific way to the fact that on two occasions Jesus stated in fairly unambiguous terms that those to whom he was talking would live to see his return in glory. Hence Paul's advice that marriage was a waste of time right now because the world was about to be transformed. They held that belief because Jesus had told them to expect it. It was not simply a case of "we don't know when, so it could be in our lifetimes, so let's live as though that's the case." That's an evasive post hoc rationalisation on your part. The implication throughout the Christian scriptures is quite clear: Jesus said it would happen within that generation's lifetimes, the early church believed that to be the case, and theological rationalisations had to be adopted once that generation began to die off without any sign of the new world.

It's awkward isn't it. Jesus made a prophetic claim that was either wrong or was entirely misinterpreted by his earliest followers, the gospel writers, and the apostle to the gentiles. A difficult one. No wonder you preferred to discuss marriage advice and mountains. And that comforting old blankie, paradox.

Regarding Dawes being unhappy with religious discussions and name-calling I want to make the point that although name calling and vile stuff does get printed here I guess one reason I've kept coming to this site is because it's so well led (thank you to the moderaters/contributors) and there are so many intelligent and mutually respectful people here.And for the most part the subject stays on TLB and Manson related things, although I don't mind the side-threads, as I've participated in them too.It seems like so many other places on the internet are an endless juvenile fight.RH I don't know if you want to answer my questions I posted above yesterday. If you don't that's OK. I'll just slip in this one last reminder. Thanks.

Thanks Matt, I'm always here lurking in the shadows. I gotta say (at the risk of coming off as ass kissing)you guys have come so far with this blog. Dare I say it's definitely THE Manson related site at this point. Up there with the late great charliemanson.com (I can't believe Mark walked away and let that site die) and the Col's blog. You guys and Celiodrive.com are the only ones I check out any more. Speaking of, I was looking at the Family pictures on celio just now and thinking just how many people out there have crazy stories we'll most likely never hear. People like Claudia Leigh Smith, Colleen Sinclair, etc. The forgotten names and members of the family. I have to think today their thoughts go back to Chatsworth, at least for a little while. I'd love to hear more about the day to day of the family on the ranches and all. The drugs, the conversations, the orgies, all the stuff that only us, the people who are really, REALLY into this case, would care about hearing.I also hope that wherever she is, Liz is doing well. We met years before this blog was around to trade Manson books and vids. She's a pissa and was always getting banned and in trouble on the old boards. She also went through a lot of shit for this blog. But really she seemed like a good person. Like many of us she was (is?) obsessed with this case and all that surrounds it,Sorry for rambling

Thank you, Andy. Really. At the risk of coming off as a chest-beater I agree. Also, Cielo is also the only other site I visit anymore as well. I hope Liz is doing well, too. She is a pissa. I hope one day we can be friends again.

Hey, I've just worked it out {I think} ¬> are you Michael, fellow Englishman with whom I had some fascinating political chats around the time of the elections ? If so, "Hiya !"if not, "hiya anyway !"

MHN said...

"you fail to respond in any specific way to the fact that on two occasions Jesus stated in fairly unambiguous terms that those to whom he was talking would live to see his return in glory"

I like sidetracked conversations as you've probably gathered and when I go down them, I'm trying to keep them short as I can but still end up with long posts {as you've probably gathered !}; I focused on the marriage aspect of your post because it could be covered fairly succinctly. The subject of Jesus' statements concerning his return is huge and not straightforward and is really way out of the scope of both the thread and the blog and even I have to draw a line somewhere. I don't think it's fair or particularly of interest to the contributors to go so far out of the topic. I don't mind doing that privately.

MHN said...

"I think it entirely strange to discuss the Manson case - Man's son, God and the Devil, the devil's work - without religious belief entering the discussion"

Couldn't agree more. God, religion and spirituality were important themes in pretty much all the lives at some point of the family members to a greater or lesser extent prior to the murders and in some of them subsequent to the murders. The TLB case shone an uncomfortable light into mainstream America {and to some extent, beyond} and in some ways, continues to do so. So discussions tilting this way from time to time are inevitable as will be discussions tilting towards other things like crime and punishment, sex, control etc.

Dawes said...

"I'm finding it very annoying that long religious discussions keep appearing in topics that are meant to be discussions of Manson-related case facts. Everyone has their opinions on religion, but I did not expect to find that this blog was meant to be a center of debate for them"

If a subject bores me rigid or I find it annoying, I just don't get involved in it. There's enough good stuff here to find that I can get my teeth into as the mood takes me.

Manson, trampled by society, rejected by mother and father, beaten-up and betrayed by Shorty Shea among others, plays the prophet, claims that the end of the world as we know it is coming down fast, that the order of things will be transformed, and that he will emerge from a small cupboard beneath the handbasin - er, sorry - from a hiding place beneath the desert and will rule with his acolytes.

Jesus, rejected by the establishment, misunderstood by his own family, betrayed by his own Shorty Shea, says this directly to his accuser and the gathered priests:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

Is that connection tenuous? Damn right, but I haven't had caffeine for over 3 hours and my daughter has painted my face with my wife's make-up to make me look "like a tiger", but she's succeeded only in making me look like the most destitute hobo in human history, so... cut me some slack here.

I know what hate is (an emotion or opinion that is part of human life and can often be entirely rational and justified), and I know what speech is. But 'hate speech'? Confused. Is it forbidden? Why? Is 'love speech' forbidden? Why not? That's an emotional opinion too. How does this game work?

Personal abuse is one thing, but are you suggesting that special rules should stop someone expressing an opinion on something just because someone else really really really really really believes in it?

"Dawes said....With regard to people like Claudia Smith and Colleen Sinclair, I don't think they really should be called "family" members. There were a lot of people passing through back then or even just there but on the periphery. The core group is pretty much what was present during the trial; but yes, there are a lot of people who surely have some interesting stories that they have chosen not to make public over the years."

Yea it gets confusing sometimes trying to remember the names and how long, or what time period they were there. So many names go through my head. It's like the Col used to say "I've forgotten more about this case then most people know."Sometimes it's the little, simple, seemingly unimportant stuff I'd like to hear about.And I agree wholeheartedly about these long off-topic arguments. Didn't mommy teach us politics and religion are not good public conversation.

MHN, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss religion. It's definitely relevant when talking about a cult. And I'm not a Christian, I dislike all the Abrahamic faiths, tbh. Which leads me to this:

Normally I am the sort who, if they spews bile, spews bile at the notion of 'political correctness'. It's the one thing I DO get in real arguments about on the internet, the way the Terminally Offended now find things like the phrase "green with envy" insensitive because it might offend colourblind people (actually seen someone say this). I think hate speech laws are ridiculous. In the UK a while back a young man named Garron Helm was JAILED for tweeting a picture of a Jewish MP with a yellow star photoshopped onto her forehead and the phrase '#hitlerwasright' at the bottom. I thought that -the jailing- was disgraceful. I agree 100% that "the word offensive is a cancer on the human mind", which is why I mused on how it's funny that there's only one thing really not considered generally offensive nowadays, which seems to be slagging off Christians- and white people.

BUT. When I see someone slagging off Christianity, in the way someone like Garron Helm slagged off someone of a particular creed and political belief, it nettles me. I'd like to think that's because, even though I personally dislike the tenets of Christianity, I don't think all Christians are by definition mindless idiots incapable of rational thought; I've met plenty who've proven to be otherwise. BUT. Would it nettle me if you'd all been sitting here ragging on Islam & Muslims? Nope. Wouldn't have given any shits. So what does that tell me? That what really influences my thinking is my prejudices, which are pro-Western (and by necessity pro-Christian, although ideally the two wouldn't be conflated).

In short I'm a bit of a hypocrite, but I like to think I recognise I'm a hypocrite, which is why I usually stay the hell away from arguments about Christianity. They give me a headache. You all can have them, though! Just remember that your points are taken a lot more seriously by people when they're made in a civil fashion.

Vermouth, excellent point. I couldn't agree more. There are few things that needle me more than anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, but I find it repellant that the power of the state and the law should be brought down on someone for voicing their obnoxious vile thoughts. I'd rather know what the world really is than what the law compels it to pretend to be.

Dawes, come on now, don't be so precious, I am not in with the moderators, and I don't have axe to grind with you. As you yourself noted, there is a line already, the occasional comment gets deleted by the mods; the fact that you're nevertheless complaining about "hate speech" implies that you want the line shifted a bit. I don't. This is a place for discussion and debate, usually respectful, but sometimes very rough indeed. It's not a safe space.

As a Christian myself, my take on things is this. If you are an adherent of a book that claims that mankind is inherently sinful and therefore deserving of the eternal destruction that will come its way unless it accepts an ancient Jew as saviour, you have to expect and accept that many will despise you for your views. In other words, if you're going to be at war with half the world, then fight, don't whine. Be at war, don't cower behind demands for etiquette, don't demand respect, don't play politics, don't seek to prohibit abuse. You were warned to expect it, so welcome it as a fulfilment of prophecy. Fight, pray, don't whine and mewl.

ALL of YOU "thanks" for making this website ahh inspiring for a curious mind.

So here is my relevant QUESTION: Were the "moneychangers" actually thrown out of the temple OR were the "tables" set-up OUTside the temple in an area specifically designated for "moneychangers" to do THEIR networking before / after the worship service.

OR were the "tables" set-up INside the temple and if so, for what reason ?

You SEE: The real issue here is: Did Jesus comitt an actual "offense" / break a law of the land at the time -LIKE Charles Manson OR was HE simply born to become a legend ?

I value YOUR answers and she's got her own POST now, so PLEASE respond freely with this one now.

Robert, the tables of the moneychangers were located at the outer court, the Court of the Gentiles, which was primarily a type of bazaar. The money changers exchanged Roman coinage (which contained forbidden graven images of emperors) for Jewish and/or Tyrian coins, (which did not). Some scholars argue that the so-called cleansing of the Temple would've made it difficult if not impossible for many people to have purchased animals for sacrifice, or to have made their money offerings, which would've effectively crippled the Temple altogether. One salient fact is that Jesus is once again either citing or prophetically reenacting an Old Testament incident, namely Nehemiah's overturning of the tables of Tobiah, who had rented out storerooms at the Temple. In other words, this is not without some deliberate thought. Was it a crime? Maybe in Jewish eyes, maybe not in Roman law. However, Jerusalem was one of the most fractious places in the Empire, and this was Passover. It was a tinderbox and Jesus decided to be the match.

--------------------------------Study: Atheists Distrusted As Much As Rapists

A new study finds that atheists are among society's most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.

Psychologists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon say that their study demonstrates that anti-atheist prejudice stems from moral distrust, not dislike, of nonbelievers.

"It's pretty remarkable," said Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?

The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.

The study is part of an attempt to understand what needs religion fulfills in people. Among the conclusions is a sense of trust in others.

"People find atheists very suspect," Shariff said. "They don't fear God so we should distrust them; they do not have the same moral obligations of others. This is a common refrain against atheists. People fear them as a group."

Michael - thanks a bunch - I'm doing reasearch to find a new "hook" for my 5 hour mini-series and You are a big help with a religious subject. I guess that makes me a Jesus Basher too. NOT only did the Family discuss Christainity and Muslim / Islam, BUT the Vietnam WAR which was actually a war against Atheist Communism.

Fiddy 8: Welcome to the world of NO sense. Your comment is most revealing and I love your little "bit" at the end. Sounds like atheists should apply for the new "minority" status ( illegal non-believers) - could be some $$$ benefits available.

Robert, the High Priest and the Roman governor were the Jesus bashers, not you or I. If you and I are bashing anything, it's something else. Unless you're a Nietzschean (which I am on alternate weeks) or a vanilla moral conformist, there is not much to bash about Jesus. An admirable and dangerous human being even if you reject religious belief (which I do on alternate weeks).

In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:

* 70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.* 20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.* 10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.* ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.* NOT - To help a friend.

--------------------------------------

My apologies to George for joining in with surfing a topic tangent off his very convincing post, but certainly religious attitudes are as important to the entire saga as drugs and sex.

Random Fact: in 2015, only 1.4% of all web users under the age of 25 use "LOL".

I didn't particularly like the ' hearing the rants of a drunken mailman' comment, but you know what? It's all good. Discussion should move the ball forward, like Carli Lloyd, a New Jersey girl does on the soccer pitch.

And Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme is still as crazy as a hive of bees nested in a mailbox. The world does what it does to all of us and afterwards some of us explain ourself better than others.

If Charles Manson was being regularly slapped around at Spahn’s Ranch it would have been a very big topic of conversation amongst his immediate associates who, of course, held him in high esteem. It would have been very big news. And yet none of those associates recalls any such occurrences. Not one

In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" part of Charlie's defence for the Hinman murder is that Hinman had threatened to go to Spahn and kill him and Bobby stabbed him to prevent this after first offering his own life. It never sat right with me then but when I initially read this thread last summer, I thought that it was even less likely. Having spent a few more months thinking about it, the idea that Gary Hinman was going up to Spahn to kill Charlie is about as likely as a three legged dog walking backwards down the stairs with a cat on it's back.Not that it proves anything but men that have spent most of their lives in jail and young offender units are a whole lot less likely to be beaten up and threatened by men on the outside with no violent history, especially if the guy they are threatening to kill has just sliced their face with a huge sword.Lyn's words in this thread are actually yet another nail in Charlie's coffin of explanations of his parts in the murders, as are the corroborations.

The key impact of both crimes is that Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Felony Murder do not require the defendant to actually kill anyone or even be present when someone is murdered to be guilty of murder. That, of course, rather obviously is directed at Charles Manson.